This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/address-policy-wg@ripe.net/
[address-policy-wg] RE: Question - Aviation
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: Question - Aviation
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] RE: Question
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Davis, Terry L
terry.l.davis at boeing.com
Wed Apr 12 20:41:46 CEST 2006
Thomas It might; it does seem to meet requirements. We would need to spend some more time thinking about any potential impacts of address collision and how this would work DNS, gateway nodes, etc. Take care Terry > -----Original Message----- > From: Thomas Narten [mailto:narten at us.ibm.com] > Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2006 5:20 AM > To: Davis, Terry L > Cc: Bound, Jim; Tony Hain; PPML; address-policy-wg at ripe.net; Richard > Jimmerson; Latif Ladid ("The New Internet based on IPv6"); > ollivier.robert at eurocontrol.fr; Brig, Michael P CIV DISA GES-E; Pouffary, > Yanick; Green, David B RDECOM CERDEC STCD SRI > Subject: Re: Question - Aviation > > "Davis, Terry L" <terry.l.davis at boeing.com> writes: > > > PSS: Back to "critical infrastructure" networks a moment, I'd say that > > any network that wanted to declare itself "critical infrastructure" > > could obtain PI space, > > Note: in my mind "PI" space is closely associated with the notion of > "being routed within the DFZ of the public internet". > > > BUT to me this type of network should always be run as a "closed > > network" with exchanges to the Internet only through "mediation > > gateways" operating at the application level, not at the routing > > level. > > So, this type of network isn't connected directly to the internet and > is thus not really part of the public internet (which makes sense to > me). Thus, it is unclear to me that PI space is really needed for > this. > > Seems to me, that all you really need is globally unique, unrouted (on > the public internet) space. > > Would RFC 4193 "unique local addresses" satisify the need? > > And if your answer is "they are not unique enough", would centrally > assigned ones, ala (expired) draft-ietf-ipv6-ula-central-00.txt meet > your needs? (It would be ironic if you answered yes, because the topic > of resurrecting this document came up during the discussion of > http://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2006_2.html at Tuesday's ARIN > meeting). > > Thomas
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: Question - Aviation
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] RE: Question
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]